topspeed1

iTrader: (2)

Do you have a copy of your dyno, I would like to see the power curve.

Also did you cc your motor? I was wondering how much compression you have.

Thanks

G Atsma

Topspeed1, you are talking with some guys who REALLY know their **** about this kind of stuff. So don't count them short. The Dynojet guy would never reveal a shortcoming of his stuff. It's like asking a car salesman if their cars are any good...

Darth_V8r

iTrader: (4)

Sure! The heads are 59cc and compression is 11.5. I don’t know what you mean by cc-ing the engine. I did my CR by math. Based on sbe dimensions, head and head gasket volumes. .006� deck height. Cranking compression is 205-210 all cylinders if that means anything.



The lighter lines were the fast 102. Heavier line was ported MSD.

KCS

iTrader: (20)

Did you talk with him about the weather station? I'm 99% sure that's how you can manipulate ANY dyno.

BudRacing

iTrader: (3)

I think the entire point of the dyno as a tool is being overlooked. It's not a dick measuring tool. Its purpose is to quantify effects of modifications and tuning in order to maximize results. We're all guilty of comparing numbers even though the majority of runs are done on different machines within different environments and with varying results. It's all in good fun, but at the end of the day it's pretty pointless, manipulated or not.

JoeNova

I downloaded the most recent version of WinPEP.
It took me 2 hours to get the libaries open far enough to reconfigure anything I wanted. There is also part of it that is to be configured to your specific dyno, giving serial *, roller mass, etc.

So I decided to pull out the formula for the interia roller and reduce the mass (the same thing as removing the weights).

Lets just say he must've lied to you.

ddnspider

iTrader: (26)

that was the point of my initial post. It won't make 500rwhp on an honest Dyno. Considering how much they vary Dyno to Dyno, ESPECIALLY dynojets, it can read whatever he wants it to lol.

pantera_efi

iTrader: (1)

Hi Speed1, so I tried my best with EAP, large cam, ITB's, without cheating, and found 620 HP @ 7500 RPM. (bench)

I do know that YOU never stated the 18%-22% loss a Rolling Road costs.

What is your report.

I do know that things such as Diff Oil/Ratio, tire size/pressure, the testing day air quality, Trans Gear Ratio, etc. can make some difference in the report.

MOST will state an engine with a 2x HP output vs CID would need to be classified as an "ALL OUT" Race Engine.

Lance

sillysspeed

iTrader: (21)

Absolutely you can squeeze 500rw out of a 5.3. Probably need a purpose built engine tho. Really good machine work, dome pistons, a fine set of 243's. Aggressive cam and maybe a msd intake. Do you want 1/4 mile times or just dyno numbers?

Now a big bore/short stroke 5.3 would be no problem at all making 500rw. It would open up a ton of head choices

Darth_V8r

iTrader: (4)

I say AFR 215 set up for small bore, 242/250 LLSR cam, 3/8 pushrods, titanium valves, medium runner length. May not be perfect but It’s get you close enough to know what to tweak. You’d need about 390 lbs tq at 7500 rpm. That doesn’t sound unrealistic

SoFla01SSLookinstok

I will say that that little 5.3 setup makes for an impressive power curve. Don't even want to get into the numbers thing. By the shape & rpm, along with other things, it's making great power. Like said it may not have peaked yet.

topspeed1

iTrader: (2)

I wonder is 215's would be enough? i would think so but I dont want to by heads twice

G Atsma

As I said before, the guys here know their stuff. You have an answer in your post above where you quote Darth-V8r. Then you wonder if the heads mentioned are enough. He knows of which he speaks. You asked what it would take to get 500whp. Darth tells you. If he thinks 215's are enough, you may rest assured they are. Who else do you need answers from?

topspeed1

iTrader: (2)

Man what is your deal. I am trying to have a legitimate discussion here. Me and Darth-V8r may not completely agree when it comes to dynos but he did make over 500hp with a stock displacement 5.7 which is why i have been asking him questions about his setup and he has been kind enough to respond, which i appreciate. I am just having an open ended discussion. I never said Darths recommendation wasnt a good one. But if no one questioned or discussed anything we would still be in the engine dark ages.

I may be new to ls1tech and I am pretty new to ls engines but I have built many engines over the years It was just mainly fords. 90 percent of the engines I build are forced induction.

I was just trying to have some advanced engine discussion in the "advanced engineering tech" section.

If you have such a big problem with me stop posting on my thread.

Once again , Thank you Darthv8r and anyone else that had added legitimate information to my thread.

Lets get back to the original topic.

500hp 5.3,

Darth_V8r

iTrader: (4)

You know, I think so. PatG hit 508 on AFR205’s. So I’m pretty sure the 215 heads will support it. Problem is the bore limits valve size. Bad. I’m sure you’ve seen some small bore rectangle stuff? Does great at medium bore, but small bore seems to choke off flow at the valves. Ends up no better than cathedral.

I mean if you were doing a 6.0, I’d go 235 and It’s an Easy call. But shrink the valves down for the bore. And it’s a different story. It’s just going to require some rpm like you were saying. You might need some custom work for enhanced low lift flow. Anything to help it. Also don’t want it to level off at 600 lift like a lot do.

Sorry. Longer answer to a simple question, but I’m confident in the castings flowing enough. The wild card is the intake valve size and bore limitation.

G Atsma

topspeed1- No problem man, didn't mean to hassle anyone. Best wishes on achieving your goals with your engine. I appreciate your efforts to get the right answers for your project. A little more understanding on my part would have been good here!

topspeed1

iTrader: (2)

Also does anyone have any cam suggestions?

JoeNova

The LLSR suggested before is a good cam recommendation. If you don't want to be tinkering with it endlessly, trying to squeeze that last bit of power out of your hydraulic setup to get to 500whp, then you might as well spring for the solid roller and get it done in one shot.

Its not required, but will take one variable out of the equation if you're willing to pay for the cost of the solid conversion.

Mavn

iTrader: (3)

How old are you TopSpeed1

Darth_V8r

iTrader: (4)

I agree. i sorta think it'll be needed, so it'd be cheaper to just do it vs building it twice.

it's tricky on speccing LLSR. Basically, i look a the hydraulic cam i'd suggest and add 5 degrees. At least for a starting point. Guys like Steve, Kip, and Martin are better at it than me. So, i threw 242/250 out there. might even want a bit more, but I don't think you'll want too much more than that.

I certainly felt like the the LLSR was a big kick in the pants on power over the hydraulic. Definitely more responsive to the throttle. I went from 496 through a stock-geared ten bolt to 519 through a 4.11 geared 9". So, it's at least 25 HP, plus overcoming additional drivetrain mass.

Cost of entry isn't too bad. The lifters aren't that much different from morel drop-in hydraulic lifters on price. Actually, cheaper than some of the high end hydraulic lifters. And you can do it without the adjustable rockers. Don't get me wrong, Jezels and HS are great rockers, but you can do it with YT non-adjustables as long as your cam base circles are about the same. You just need a set of machine shims to set the pedestal height to get to zero lash. you also need to match your pushrod lengths almost perfectly so that your rockers pairs are level - intake and exhaust. That's the short version of how I did mine. It was right near 150K when I did the swap, and it's 165K now, so it's reliable so far. Last i knew, Kip had LLSR on his DD Camaro, and was at 24K miles - at least a year ago, if not two years ago.

So, it's not the $3K+ upgrade it used to be by any stretch, and it's very durable. In a way, it might be better than adjustable rockers. I mean, is a rocker adjuster more likely to come lose or is a machine shim more likely to change it's thickness?